THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


BLOCKSON CHEMICAL
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on January 9, 


2007. 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

January 9, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


NIOSH’S ADDRESS OF SC&A’S REPORT 11 


REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS 29 


FUTURE SCHEDULE 44 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 49 


 6 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BERKLES, KAREN, NIOSH 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, MARY, ORAU 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


LARGO, GEORGE, ORAU 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


SCHOFIELD, PHILLIP, FUTURE BOARD MEMBER 


TOMES, TOM, NIOSH 

 

6 

1 

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (5:30 p.m.) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO
 

DR. WADE: Thank you again. This is Lew 


Wade, and I have the privilege of serving as 


the Designated Federal Official for the 


Advisory Board. And this is a meeting of the 


work group of the Advisory Board, and this is 


a work group looking at the Blockson Chemical 


SEC petition. That work group is chaired by 


Wanda Munn with members Roessler, Melius, 


Gibson, and am I correct? Is Brad an 


alternate or a – 


 MS. MUNN: Brad’s an alternate. 


DR. WADE: Brad’s an alternate. That’s what 


I thought. And as I could tell by people 


speaking, all of the members and the alternate 


are present on the call. 


I would ask if there are any other 


Board members present on the call? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE: Okay, well, we have no issues 


then with a quorum of the Board, and we can 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

proceed. What we would normally do, and I 


suggest we do here, is introductions. And 


that is I’d ask members of the NIOSH and ORAU 


team who are on the line to identify 


themselves. And if anyone should be 


conflicted at Blockson, I would like you to 


identify that conflict now. 


Then we’d have members of SC&A, the 


SC&A team, identify themselves. Then if there 


are any other federal employees on the line 


who are participating as part of their 


employment, I would like them to identify 


themselves. Then we’ll ask if there are 


workers, worker representatives or 


representatives of members of Congress who 


would like to be identified. 


And then we would let anyone else 


who’s involved also identify themselves. 


Again, but for the NIOSH and ORAU team and for 


the SC&A team, I would ask if there are 


conflicts that those conflicts be mentioned. 


So if we could start with the 


NIOSH/ORAU team. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, 


Director of OCAS in NIOSH, the Office of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

Compensation Analysis and Support. I have no 


conflicts with regard to Blockson Chemical. 

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton with NIOSH. I 

have no conflicts. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld with 

NIOSH/OCAS, no conflict at Blockson. 

MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes with NIOSH. I 

also have no conflicts at Blockson. 

DR. WADE: Other members of the NIOSH or 

ORAU team? 

MS. ELLIOTT: This is Mary Elliott from the 


ORAU team, worker outreach team. 


MS. CHANG: This is Chia-Chia Chang in the 


NIOSH Director’s office. I have no conflicts. 


DR. WADE: Anyone else from NIOSH/ORAU? 


MR. LARGO: George Largo, ORAU team, no 


conflicts with Blockson. 


DR. WADE: Thank you, George. 


Anyone else on the NIOSH/ORAU team? 


 MS. BERKLES: This is Karen Berkles, NIOSH 


team, no conflicts. 


DR. WADE: What about SC&A? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John Mauro, no 


conflicts. 


DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A, no 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

conflict. 


DR. WADE: Welcome, Hans. 


Other members of the SC&A team? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE: Other federal employees who are 


on the call as part of their employment? 


MS. HOWELL: This is Emily Howell with HHS, 


no conflicts. 


DR. WADE: Welcome back, Emily. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus with HHS 


and no conflict. 


DR. WADE: Any other federal employees? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE: Any workers, worker 


representatives, representatives of members of 


Congress on the call? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE: Anyone else who would like to be 


identified on the record as being on the call? 


MR. SCHOFIELD: Phillip Schofield. 


DR. WADE: Welcome. 

MS. MUNN: Welcome, Phil. 

DR. WADE: Phil is not a seated member of 

the Board at this point but has been named as 


a member of the Board, and hopefully that will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

happen quickly, and we’ll have him as a full-


fledged member with us soon. 


Thank you again for participating. 


Phil was with us this morning on Rocky 


Flats as well. 


MS. MUNN: It’s good to have you, Phil. I 


don’t think this one will be as complicated as 


this morning’s was. 


DR. WADE: Anyone else want to be 


identified? 


Ray, I assume you’re up and ready, and 


we’re on the record and everything’s good to 


go? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. 


DR. WADE: Wanda, it’s all yours. 


MS. MUNN: Good. I assume that all of you 


with the possible exception of Phil and some 


of the ORAU folks received the e-mail of 


yesterday indicating what the status of the 


Blockson documents is with NIOSH, and that 


they are being withheld for the time-being due 


to the fact that they’re being reworked 


considerably. 


And I’m assuming also that you have my 


notation following that with respect to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

three items I hope to cover today. Just in 


case some of you didn’t hear that, the three 


items I indicated I hoped we would cover is to 


have NIOSH clarify for us whether all of the 


findings in SC&A’s draft report are going to 


be addressed in the deliberations that they 


are now currently undertaking for revisions. 


And ask the working group members to 


be prepared to give us any additional concerns 


or comments that you have with respect to 


documents you’ve already reviewed, and then 


we’re going to talk a little bit about what 


our schedule looks like for the next step. 


Does anyone have any other item that you’d 


like for us to cover? 


 (no response) 


NIOSH’S ADDRESS OF SC&A’S REPORT
 

MS. MUNN: If not, I’ll ask who has the lead 


at NIOSH with telling us where we are with 


respect to the current documents and whether 


or not the seven findings SC&A gave us, their 


letter report, their draft letter report, are, 


in fact, all items that you’re going to be 


addressing and are already on the board for 


you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

MR. ELLIOTT: Wanda, this is Larry Elliott, 


and let me start with a response to that 


particular inquiry. And I’ll ask Jim Neton 


and Stu Hinnefeld to also provide comment on 


this; correct me if I’m wrong and fill in the 


cracks that I leave here. But let me just 


characterize for everybody that’s on the line 


what has happened with the Blockson Technical 


Basis Document and the Blockson SEC Petition 


Evaluation Report. 


After hearing the discussion and the 


public comments at the Board meeting in 


Naperville, we at NIOSH and OCAS felt that we 


needed to look at the language in both of 


these documents and clarify that we were 


reconstructing all of the dose that should be 


reconstructed for the workers at this 


facility. That goes to covered exposure and 


designation of the facility as it’s defined as 


a covered facility. 


We had some conversations with the 


Department of Labor, and we come away from 


those with a strong feeling that we needed to 


withdraw both of these documents and reevaluate the commercial dose that’s present on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

the site during the covered period for the 


site. So we’re looking strongly into that. 


Concurrently with all of that we have 


made some revisions to the Technical Basis 


Document which is really a chemical exposure 


model for the site. And from those, those 


came out from various sources but primarily 


from SC&A’s review of the first 20 cases and 


looking also at the TBD. What changes we made 


revolved around external dose, and we 


increased that due to a re-evaluation of the 


model doses that we were using. 


We increased the internal doses 


primarily by looking at bioassay data and 


considering the 95th percentile coworker 


intakes, and we also added radon as an 


internal dose. Ingestion intakes were also 


added for GI tract cancers, and a new approach 


was also developed to assign dose from 


residual contamination. 


So all of these changes in that 


revised site profile would require us to do 


what we call a program evaluation review and 


look at all of the denied claims that DOL has 


made decision on in determining whether or not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

those changes affect the outcome for that 


claim. So we have a PER, Program Evaluation 


Review, scheduled to be initiated very soon. 


We postponed that until we have 


completed our evaluation of what dose needs to 


be reconstructed. We’ll be notifying the 


active claimants, those who have, are awaiting 


dose reconstructions or some answer on their 


claims, and we’ll handle the PERs through our 


normal procedures and notice the people 


accordingly. 


So with that let me say to you that we 


have also looked at the SC&A comments, the 


seven findings, and I’ll turn to Jim and to 


Stu now to finish the rest of the answer to 


your question here as to whether or not what 


we’re going to address will include all seven 


of those findings. 


Guys, would you take it on? 


DR. NETON: This is Jim. Can everybody hear 


me okay? I’m sitting at home. I don’t know 


how well this speakerphone works. 


MS. MUNN: You’re picking up fine, Jim. 


DR. NETON: Just to elaborate a little bit 


on what Larry talked about which is why we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

chose to withdraw the evaluation report and 


the Technical Basis Document to re-evaluate 


what exposures really needed to be 


reconstructed. It’s a fairly complicated 


issue in a way. 


Blockson Chemical is one of the few 


sites that actually has a piece of the site 


partitioned off and identified as a covered 


facility. That definition of the covered 


facility is Building 55. So our original site 


profile was written such that we felt 


confident that we were reconstructing the 


covered exposures in Building 55 which were 


due to the uranium and some potential wafting 


in of radon from about the site because radon 


being a noble gas has no boundaries. So we 


felt that the radon ultimately needed to be 


reconstructed. 


After that meeting as Larry mentioned, 


we looked at it much more closely, and it 


turns out there are a couple scenarios that 


take the exposure outside of Building 55, most 


notably the addition of an oxidation step in 


the process. It would have occurred somewhere 


in the main body of the plant. We don’t know 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

where exactly but certainly not in Building 


55. 


Because of that then, that opens the 


door for these other, what Larry mentioned or 


we call commercial exposures, that is, the 


radium and the thorium and the other 


radionuclides that were present at the plant 


during their normal commercial process whether 


or not they were making a uranium product for 


the DOE or the AEC. We conferred with OGC on 


that, and the ruling was made or the decision 


was made that because of that oxidizing step 


being in the main body of the plant, we needed 


to go back and rethink about the exposure 


related to thorium, radium and possibly some 


of the other short-lived progeny in the 


uranium decay series. And we’re doing that. 


As to whether we’re going to address 


all these exposures and cover all the issues 


brought about in SC&A’s findings, I think we 


are. I think six of the seven findings by my 


recollection were related to how we were 


dealing with the other radionuclides. 


MS. MUNN: Or pretty much. 


DR. NETON: Prior to our decision that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

Building 55 was it, our answer would have been 


that while those nuclides are not covered, 


would not necessarily be covered under the 


provisions of the Act, but as you know, now 


we’re re-looking at that. 


There is one issue though that’s 


raised that we don’t know that we’re 


necessarily going to deal with. It’s part of 


this re-evaluation. And that is the thought 


that one of the findings suggests that 


possibly the Building 55 itself may have been 


made from some of the tailings or raffinates 


as a result of the chemical processing of the 


phosphate ores at Blockson. 


We don’t know that that’s, it’s kind 


of a speculation on SC&A’s part, and I think 


even that they state that there is no real 


concrete evidence that they could see that 


would support that at this time, you know, 


sort of a suggestion I think that maybe that 


ought to be looked at. But again, we have no 


way of knowing, and we certainly don’t have 


any evidence that this has occurred. 


DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John Mauro. To add 


to that we looked into that a bit because we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

know that there have been occasions where 


tailings were used as construction fill, but 


you’re correct. We have no information. 


There is some indirect evidence that it was 


not. 


We brought this up because we 


considered that this might be an issue. It 


turns out there’s some data from 1978 


(unintelligible) characterization where they 


took some soil samples and some radon 


measurements in and around Building 55. And 


there’s some data, not a lot of data, that 


would indicate that, no, that the tailings 


probably were not used in any way. And so --


in construction of the building because the 


ratio of the uranium to the radium didn’t 


reveal that, and the radon levels were at 


background levels. 


So both of those would be, at least an 


initial indication. So, yes, I concur with 


you that at least the information that we 


reviewed seems to indicate that that did not 


occur. We brought it up as something that I 


thought is worthy of mention, however, in the 


TBD or the evaluation report. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

DR. NETON: And a thought comes to my mind 


that if we end up with an exposure model that 


includes the other progeny in the uranium 


series, I would guess that the exposures that 


we would assign would be higher than any 


exposures that would have been incurred by 


occupying a facility that, you know, made of 


that material. 


Then we’re talking process-type 


exposures, but your grinding, crushing rock 


that contain radium and filtration possibly 


with thorium-230, those types of activities. 


I don’t know, we don’t have a model for that 


yet, but again, I would suspect the dose would 


bound the exposure even if the building were 


made out of those materials. 


MS. MUNN: I certainly appreciate your 


comments, John, because two of the questions 


that I had were related to that finding number 


six, one of which was, isn’t there any soil 


survey data. 


DR. MAURO: There is. There are several 


samples would have been collected. But I 


brought it up because it wasn’t mentioned in 


the site profile, but it was contained in some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

of the literature that stands behind it. So, 


and we looked at that, and I think that 


certainly helps to deal with that. 


But as Jim pointed out it sounds like 


there are a number of new scenarios that are 


going to be explored where the workers might 


be in closer contact with the radium part of 


the stream or where there is some radium and 


radon possibly. And certainly that would be a 


little bit more limiting than just a wafting 


over on the radon. I would agree with that. 


MS. MUNN: On that issue and on finding 


number one, in both cases I asked myself what 


had triggered your concern in that regard. 


Why would you think some of these things were 


the case? 


DR. MAURO: In finding number one dealing 


with Type M versus Type S? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: Well, I bring it up because 


coincidentally, I just finished reviewing 


Chapman which was also dealing with U-308. 


And in that case the exposure matrix created a 


matrix where the dose reconstructor would use 


either Type M or Type S depending on the organ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

of concern. And I guess from reading the 


material that I read, I saw no reason, in 


having that option available to the dose 


reconstructors to make sure that the doses are 


not underestimated. 


And quite frankly, historically, U308, and certainly Jim could help qualify it, 


you know, can behave somewhat like Type M or 


perhaps like Type S. It was my understanding 


that’s the reason that (telephonic 


interruption) went that through allowing both 


paths to be taken depending on what’s 


limiting. And that seemed to be a pretty good 


idea. 


I don’t know, Jim, if you concur that 


this applies to this situation also. 


DR. NETON: I’m not sure it does, John, in 


the sense that Chapman was dealing solely with 


our knowledge of metal components, you know, 


metal --


DR. MAURO: Sure. 


DR. NETON: -- and whatever, that when you 


oxidize, turn them, oxidize them, they 


certainly may have the potential to become 


Type S, Type S materials. But when you start 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

talking about freshly made uranium, 


precipitate uranium out of the chemical 


process such as we have at Blockson, it’s at 


least my opinion at this point that Type M 


adequately bounds or covers that scenario. 


We’ll take a closer look at the chemistry 


though just to make sure we’re not missing 


something. But again, they never took this 


(unintelligible) at Blockson. 


DR. MAURO: Well, you know, in my write-up 


all I indicated was that case wasn’t made in 


the site profile, and all I had in my mind 


was, it was U-308 in both cases. I see the 


distinction you’re making there. I guess 


there’s U-308, and there’s U-308. And so my 


only recommendation would be if in fact you’re 


going to stay with the Type M and not create 


the Type S alternative, or option, a little 


bit of discussion and rationale for why in 


this particular case that’s the reasonable 


approach to take. 


DR. NETON: I think that it’s reasonable. I 


remember having this conversation way back a 


long time ago at a Board meeting. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Well, Wanda, this is Larry. I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

hope you got an answer to your first question, 


and if I could, let me summarize. We think 


that you’re going to address all six of the 


comments or findings that have been raised by 


SC&A. And the one that Jim mentioned that 


stirred up about the raffinates being used as 


fill, tails and all of that, we’ll address 


that as well. And I think John’s comment 


about providing explanation as to why S is not 


being used over M makes sense as well. We can 


accommodate that for sure. 


MS. MUNN: Good, and I’m assuming that given 


the fact that you’re going to take a much 


closer look at where and how the additional 


observation process was added that this 


automatically brings all the thorium questions 


into play, correct? 


MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, unfortunately once that 


oxidation stuff occurs in the plant, we don’t 


know what, we don’t know where it was. We 


have to assume that it could have been near 


any of these other steps that would generate 


airborne uranium progeny, and uranium itself 


for that matter I suppose if it was in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

solution at that point. Yeah, we’ll look at 


them in very close detail. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This will certainly be one of 


the questions we pursue with the workers at 


the worker outreach meeting that’s coming up 


week after next. 


MS. MUNN: Good, including the issue of yet 


an additional waste stream that has not been 


taken into consideration. 


DR. NETON: Right, and Building 55, but now 


that we are covering the whole plant, it 


becomes important. But the good news is we 


know quite a bit about the chemistry of the 


uranium process there. The downside is right 


now we don’t know a lot about how it was 


actually implemented at Blockson other than 


which precipitation steps occurred with the 


thorium, for example, were there filter cakes 


made, was a liquid effluent dumped into the 


holding pond. That’s the kind of information 


we’re hoping that we might be able to get from 


the workers. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I hope so, too. I also 


hope that somewhere in the literature there 


may be a better definition of the ratios of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

concentrations of the respective thorium 


nuclides that were mentioned in the 


attachments. We’re talking about inhalation. 


And the inhalation question itself 


gives rise to questions in my mind which is I 


don’t have a feel for where the dry process 


stops and the wet process begins; and 


therefore, have a hard time identifying from 


the information that I have failed to absorb 


very well exactly whether these issues with 


respect to their relative concentrations of 


the thorium nuclides are as an insulate are 


well-founded or whether because it’s a wet 


process, it may be almost moot. But I’m sure 


that’s something you’re going to address, 


right? 


DR. NETON: We hope so. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, we hope so, too. 


I have no other marked issues that I 


have, I don’t believe. Liquid versus powder 


issues for inhalation and concentrations of 


the thorium were looming large in my mind. 


Does anyone else in the work group 


have questions or comments they want to throw 


in at this time? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26

 MR. CLAWSON: Wanda, this is Brad. Being 


kind of new and everything else to this, I was 


just wondering while we’re going back and 


taking a look at this, are we looking -- are 


we going to be looking a little bit at the 


process, too, of things, how it was received, 


how it went through and so forth like that? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, Brad, this is Jim. 


Ideally, yes, that would be the case. We’ll 


try to model the process and get as good a 


handle on it as we can to come up with some 


bounding estimates of these potential 


exposures based on what we can learn about the 


process. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, thank you. 


DR. NETON: Of course, the more Blockson 


statistics it is the better. 


MR. GIBSON: And Wanda, this is Mike. You 


know, based on Larry’s e-mail the other day 


that their almost back to re-evaluate it, I 


guess it’s just in my opinion, premature for 


me to make any other comments till we see what 


they come up with. 


MS. MUNN: From my perspective we really 


need to wait until after they’ve had a chance 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

to talk to the workers. 


DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I think 


that’s covered under the next agenda item, but 


just to make sure could someone describe 


what’s going to happen, plans are for the 


visit to the site? 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. It’s 


not so much a visit to the site as it is a 


couple of meetings in Joliet that we’re 


advertising to Joliet claimants who are former 


employees. And I think we’re advertising it 


to Joliet claimants there, too, but Blockson 


claimants in general, but we’re really 


emphasizing trying to get people who worked at 


the site who can describe to us the work that 


went on there, in particular, things 


(unintelligible) process, what did the various 


waste streams, how were they collected or 


treated or what direction did they go and 


things to that extent. 


So it’s the intent on our part to 


obtain information from people who worked 


there their description of how things worked. 


And we’ll answer what questions we can. These 


are, this is kind of a public meeting so 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

people will be able to say what they want. 


But our desire is to learn as much as we can 


about how things worked there. 


The dates are the 24th and 25th of 


January, and they’re at the Joliet Municipal 


Building. 


DR. MELIUS: Can I just suggest, and you may 


already be doing this, but at least you begin 


the meetings with sort of an explanation of 


what’s happened recently and, you know, 


there’ll be a lot of potential for confusion 


on the part of the claimants and so forth 


because of, you know, some of them who 


received letters and so forth, you know, about 


this reconsideration or whatever -- I don’t 


know exactly how you’re terming it -- but it 


would be, I’m just, afraid it’s going to be 


very confusing to people and it may detract 


from being able to get more information at the 


same time. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I can add to that. I think 


I’m on the, on tap to give some introductory 


remarks, and so I can certainly cover that 


during those. 


DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think it would be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

helpful. 


MS. MUNN: Agreed. 


REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS
 

One other question, have we exhausted 


all written and documented resources on the 


facility there when we did the original TBD? 


Were we aware of any additional documentation 


with respect to the process --


MR. ELLIOTT: Well, Wanda, I’ll try this and 


Tom Tomes can probably help me out or if the 


ORAU document owner’s there, they might be 


able to help as well. But I want you to 


understand that what we created in that 


Technical Basis Document and the evaluation 


report is our approach to AEC-related dose, 


Atomic Energy Commission-related dose --


MS. MUNN: Yeah, I understand that. 


MR. ELLIOTT: -- in Building 55. But what 


we’re looking at now is trying to determine 


our ability to reconstruct the commercial 


dose. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. ELLIOTT: And we never went after that 


kind of information before. 


MS. MUNN: That’s why I was asking --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

MR. ELLIOTT: We may have gotten some of it, 


but our data search retrieval strategy, you 


know, didn’t encompass that as part of the 


purpose. 


MS. MUNN: I recognize that this is an 


entirely different undertaking, and that’s why 


I asked the question whether we were already 


aware of other potential resources that were 


available that we had no reason to look at 


before. 


MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. We have a 


number of documents at our site resource 


database, and all of those have been reviewed 


in preparation of this Technical Basis 


Document. And in lieu of what we were looking 


at there was, not everything was actually 


(unintelligible) when we were writing the 


Technical Basis Document. In fact, there is 


quite a bit of information on chemical 


processes and things like that. There’s no 


specific information on thorium at Blockson at 


all, dusting. 


MR. GIBSON: This is Mike Gibson. In the old 


TBD that you’re going to be re-evaluating or 


site profile, are you going to be looking at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

the radium and radon dose from the rock 


phosphate grinding or have you already 


considered that or are you going to consider 


that when you go back and take another look at 


this? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, there’s 


already in the Technical Basis Document that 


we have there was a consideration of radon. 


We will reconsider those. SC&A has identified 


maybe there’s a different look at the data or 


a different way to interpret the data 


available than what we did. And I think 


that’s something that we will address in our 


reworked site profile. And then, yeah, and 


with respect to your radium question, that 


will have to be addressed in the reworked site 


profile. 


MS. MUNN: Do we have any time sensitive 


issues here that we need to be looking at? Do 


we have a clock running on us anywhere? 


MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I set an expectation in 


my e-mail to the Board that portrays our 


intent to present at the May meeting. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, I had seen that, but I was 


wanting to make sure that we didn’t have some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

sort of official sword of Damocles hanging 


over us. 


MR. ELLIOTT: No, I don’t know, you know. I 


threw that down as a marker trying to present 


this as timely as possible and challenging my 


folks to get us there. But I don’t know of 


any official sword or timeline that we are 


marching against here. 


MS. MUNN: Good, I’m glad to hear that. 


MR. ELLIOTT: You know, we have a 180-day 


clock on a petition that we’re trying to 


adhere to and this is an instance where I 


believe we’ve met that 180 clock on the first 


draft, but our first draft obviously is being 


re-examined at this point. So I don’t know 


where that leaves us. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, I’m not sure either. 


That’s why I asked the question. 


DR. MELIUS: Larry, this is Jim. It would 


be helpful, I think, after you’ve done the 


site visits to, if you could let at least the 


work group know what you see as the potential 


schedule for redrafting these reports and so 


forth so that we can get that coordinated in 


terms of our further review and so forth. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

MR. ELLIOTT: I will attempt to give you all 


the information I have as I gain it. That was 


my intent of my e-mail earlier about this. 


DR. MELIUS: No, I understand that. I think 


you’ll know more in terms of what additional 


information might be available that you need 


to check out after you’ve gotten these public 


meetings. 


DR. WADE: And this is Lew Wade. There is 


an interesting procedural question. I mean, 


KFA* would be NIOSH presents to the Board in 


May, and then the work group takes up the 


task. Or it’s possible that the work group 


could take up the task before the Board 


actually meets. So I mean I think that’s 


something for the work group to talk about. I 


guess no sense talking about it now until you 


get a sense of what Larry proposes as a time 


frame. But there is sort of an issue there 


that one could approach in two separate ways. 


MS. MUNN: Well, and there’s one other issue 


as well that concerns me a little bit and 


that’s with respect to SC&A’s task order with 


the letter report. I’m wondering whether it 


is reasonable, given the circumstances we have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

here which are unique in my experience, 


whether it’s reasonable to issue the report 


with it known already that NIOSH is redoing 


significantly all that, what the report is 


based on. I guess I’m open to suggestions. 


MR. GIBSON: Wanda, this is Mike. I guess 


one of my questions, I agree with what you’re 


saying, you know, we don’t realize --


MS. MUNN: What? Didn’t hear. 


MR. GIBSON: What? 


MS. MUNN: There was a word in there I 


didn’t hear. There was a squeal somewhere. 


MR. GIBSON: I agree with what you’re 


saying, you know, if this is going to be re-


looked at and everything else, it’d be, and I 


agree with Jim, it would be interesting just 


to, or informative, for us to know kind of 


exactly basically what they want to do, such 


as you know is the radon doses from the 


assorted facilities, are they going to be 


withdrawn, and then are they going to look at 


the doses that actually came from this 


facility or --


MS. MUNN: Well, I think my interpretation 


is it’s too early for NIOSH to tell us exactly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

what they’re going to do. They’ve pretty much 


told us what they intend to do, but in my 


experience, once you get into a project you 


often find it necessary to change direction. 


If that turns out to be the case, then I guess 


my question still remains is it productive for 


us to ask SC&A to go ahead and issue this 


letter report or whether it is wiser to 


withhold that until they have a different 


document which, I expect, will be the product 


from the NIOSH efforts? 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. Just a 


comment to look for your working group’s 


consideration of the respond to your question. 


We have a request from our Joliet Herald
 

reporter for a copy of this, of SC&A’s letter 


report. We also have a request from one of 


the claimants as to why it’s not on the 


website yet. So I’m willing to put this up on 


the website, but I’d like to have the Board’s 


disclaimer on it if it becomes final. Just a 


thought for your consideration. 


MS. MUNN: Our understanding was, and John, 


am I incorrect? My understanding was this was 


a draft, correct? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, that’s correct. It was a, 


in fact, it was written specifically for this 


meeting. 


MS. MUNN: It was a draft and it was 


intended for our purpose and so my question 


still remains (telephone interference) the 


working group. This is a thorny issue because 


it is always a question of transparency with 


respect to public entities who, of course, 


have every right to know what we’re talking 


about here. They could be on our phone call 


here if they so chose, but they’d like a 


condensed version I know. 


The question is shall we spend more 


time reviewing SC&A’s report and provide our 


comments to them so that what they’ve done can 


and should be issued as a document? Or shall 


we recognize the fact that this is now a 


review of a document that has already been 


withdrawn and is going to undergo a 


significant change? 


DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. I’m not a 


member of the work group obviously, but I 


would always advocate for complete but 


accurate disclosure. I would suggest that, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

suggest for consideration, the SC&A report 


could go on the website behind a letter that I 


could put in front of it describing the 


situation that led us to this point and what 


the anticipated next steps are. The work 


group might want to put something out there. 


I don’t know that you can imagine that this 


document will not be made public. I think 


it’s been made public by --


MS. MUNN: Oh, I’m sure it’s already been 


made public. 


DR. WADE: -- the fact that we’ve talked 


about this. So I think the right thing to do 


is to in front of the document put an accurate 


statement of fact. Now again, I appreciate 


the fact that someone will separate the 


document from the letter, and that’s just the 


price you pay for living in this world. But I 


would propose for consideration, the work 


group, I’ll do whatever the work group 


suggests that we put something in front of it. 


I could write it. The work group could write 


it. It would define the situation, and then 


we move forward. 


MS. MUNN: I would prefer to have Lew write 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

it and have the group approve it. How does 


the rest of the work group feel? 


DR. ROESSLER: I agree. 


DR. MELIUS: Jim Melius. I think that’s 


fine. I just think we need to get it up there 


sooner rather than later. I think if we could 


call it this interim report or something and 


the cover letter would address NIOSH is doing 


further work and so forth, and then that’s 


going to be reviewed and, you know, et cetera, 


the appropriate caveats on this, but I don’t 


think we should spend a lot of time trying to 


decide what’s in the cover letter. 


MS. MUNN: No, I don’t think so either, but 


frankly, I would prefer to see it, personally 


I would prefer to see it referred to always as 


a draft report, and I would like to see that 


draft report statement on each page that is 


produced. That’s my preference. What’s the 


feeling of the other members of the group? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. I agree with 


you. We need to put a cover letter on it, and 


I agree with Jim that sooner the better that 


we can. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s call it a draft not a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

report and, Lew, when do you think you can 


draft that letter for us? 


DR. WADE: I’ll have something to you by 

tomorrow. 

MS. MUNN: Is it all right with the group to 

see that letter, comment on it and approve it 


by e-mail? 


DR. ROESSLER: Sounds good to me. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. That’d be fine. 


MR. GIBSON: This is Mike, yes. 


MS. MUNN: Jim? 


DR. MELIUS: Yeah, fine with me. 


MS. MUNN: All right, very good. Let’s look 


forward to Lew’s letter. Anybody at NIOSH 


have any grief with that? 


MR. ELLIOTT: John, this is Larry, John. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MR. ELLIOTT: If you could, would you send 


me something so I can put it up on the website 


and include on the document the Board’s 


disclaimer? 


DR. MAURO: Sure, we could reissue this to 


you. And everyone should have an electronic 


version of this report that we’re looking at 


right now in PDF format. If there’s any type 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

of cover or disclaimer or characterization, 


for example, I notice, Wanda, right now we 


call it a letter report on the front. It 


sounds like you’d like us to call it a draft, 


not a report. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, I think that’s better. 


DR. MAURO: And if there any disclaimer-type 


language in addition to the Privacy, I notice 


I did include some Privacy Act language on the 


front. Certainly, we’ll, if you could just 


let me know what language should go on the, in 


the document that’s part of this package, I’ll 


have to take care of that immediately and reissue it. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry again. I 


appreciate the notice on the Privacy Act and I 


just need a copy that the working group 


approves to put on the website. And I thought 


there was an indication they wanted to change 


the title. But the disclaimer that I’m 


talking about is the Board had approved a 


disclaimer that was to be placed on all SC&A 


documents that would go into the public. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah, sure. 


MR. ELLIOTT: And just claiming that it’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

not the Board’s final determination, et 


cetera. I didn’t see on this document. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, you mean the one that we 


use, right, the one that we usually put on our 


site profile reviews. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: There’s a large disclaimer that 


goes on the bottom. Certainly, we can insert 


that. 


MR. GIBSON: Wanda, this is Mike, just a 


point of order, can we actually, I mean, I’m 


not saying I disagree with what Larry’s 


saying, but can we do that as a working group 


and not, can we speak for the Board or --


MS. MUNN: Yes, we can because the Board has 


already spoken in general terms with respect 


to this particular kind of document, Mike. We 


did that in full Board several months ago as I 


recall, actually, over a year ago we did that 


because we had run into quite a bit of trouble 


with these early reports that were actually in 


many cases still drafts being used as 


officially misinterpreted by the media and the 


legislators. It being final reports. 


MR. GIBSON: Yes, yes, I realize we did 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

that, but I’m just saying we’re not doing 


anything different on this document in 


particular --


MS. MUNN: No. 


MR. GIBSON: -- without the Board’s 


approval. 


MS. MUNN: No, this, this --


MR. GIBSON: This is just what we have 


approved before? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, absolutely correct, we’re 


asking that all SC&A documents have that 


disclaimer on them, and I’m asking that this 


one be issued as a draft letter report because 


we are not going further with it. We’re not 


commenting on it. We’re not changing it in 


any way, nor are we responding to any of it 


because the document that was used for its 


basis is being redone in its entirety. So I 


don’t believe that we’re speaking for the 


Board here. 


DR. WADE: This is Lew. I do think you’re 


speaking consistent with the Board’s decision. 


MR. GIBSON: I was just -- I just wanted to 


question. 


DR. WADE: It’s a good point. So with that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

disclaimer added and draft letter report 


added, that’s what we’re asking John Mauro to 


send to Larry. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. ROESSLER: And then at some point is the 


draft going to go on each page? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, I hope so, probably the 


bottom where it says Blockson SEC Petition 


Review Issues, probably dash draft would do 


right there at the footer. 


DR. MAURO: Will do. 


DR. WADE: I’ll get a draft letter to you 


fine people tomorrow morning, and then when 


you make it better, we’ll get it to Larry, and 


the package inseparable will go up on the 


site. 


MS. MUNN: Excellent. 


I have no further --


MR. ELLIOTT: And we’ll provide that to the 


reporter. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, as soon as it’s available 


with the disclaimer. No problems that I can 


see. 


Anyone else see a problem there? 


MR. GIBSON: No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

FUTURE SCHEDULE
 

MS. MUNN: All right, anything else for the 


good of the order? I have no feeling at this 


time when we are going to have our next 


working group meeting. I don’t think it’s 


productive for us to have one until NIOSH has 


had an opportunity to identify what their 


timeline is with respect to another product. 


Does anyone feel any differently? 


DR. MELIUS: No, correct, that’s why I was 


asking for the schedule. And again, not to 


try to pin down Larry at this point in time, 


but for example, if something’s going to be 


ready in March or something, we should try to 


get an SC&A review. 


And then we also may want to try to do 


a meeting or something before the May meeting. 


It may well be something has to be, at least 


our review may take place after that, but 


let’s see where NIOSH goes with this and what 


they find to be reasonable in addressing these 


issues. 


MS. MUNN: My expectation, Jim, and SC&A and 


NIOSH, both of you, correct me if I’m wrong, 


but my expectation is that when we get the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

next NIOSH product, it will probably be 


necessary for this work group to have a faceto-face meeting to go over that much more 


thoroughly and get a very extended briefing 


from NIOSH with SC&A’s comments before a move 


forward with their next review. 


DR. WADE: And then the work group will be 


together when the Board is together, early 


February in Denver. If it’s appropriate we 


could share a cup of coffee and hear Larry’s 


proposed timeline. We can just sort of play 


it by ear, but we could use that as an 


opportunity just to share information and do a 


little bit of planning. 


MS. MUNN: I should hope we would have an 


opportunity to at least spend an hour or so 


doing that just to stay abreast of where we 


are. 


 MR. CLAWSON: If it keeps snowing this much, 


we may spend a couple of days there. 


MS. MUNN: Who knows? 


DR. MELIUS: Couple weeks you mean. 


MS. MUNN: Don’t even think about it. 


DR. MELIUS: One more quick question. I 


believe that there’s also a technical TIB out 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

about the -- related to these issues that may 


also be affected by this new understanding 


with the Department of Labor that might affect 


some other sites also. Is that under review 


also, Larry? 


MS. MUNN: A new TIB? 


MR. ELLIOTT: I’m not aware of what you 


speak. 


MS. MUNN: Other than 43? 


DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I believe it’s 43. 


DR. NETON: I don’t think that there’s any 


other sites. There are some other phosphate 


plants, but those phosphate plants were to my 


knowledge different than Blockson. They 


didn’t cordon off part of the plant like 


Building 55 and call that the covered 


facility. If that being the case then, we 


would have automatically then reconstructed 


the commercial dose at those plants. And I 


honestly don’t know where those stand in our 


progress at this point. 


DR. MELIUS: Okay, just asking. 


MR. HINNEFELD: There will be probably, 


there will be an evaluation of TIB-43 which is 


occupational exposure to radon, radon progeny 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

during recovery of uranium for phosphate 


materials. That was a portion of, you know, 


that was used to develop the radon that’s 


applied at the Blockson site. 


And SC&A has commented on the 


propriety of that and has suggested some 


alternative evaluations of the available data. 


So part and parcel of the work on this will 


be, I mean, the re-evaluation with respect to 


that comment that SC&A has written in this 


report, that will take us to the re-evaluation 


of that TIB-43. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Right, but TIB-43 would be 


evaluated as Stu said, but we haven’t 


withdrawn it. It can be used at this point, 


but it’s use will be reflected against SC&A’s 


comments. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, very good. Any other 


questions, comments? 


(no response) 


MS. MUNN: Then we’ll hopefully keep in the 


back of our minds that we’ll try to have a 


brief meeting on this topic to see where we 


are while we’re in Denver. We’ll see what the 


agenda there is looking like before we make 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

48 

any rash comments about when we might try to 


do that. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I’ll try to get you what I can 


as soon as I feel comfortable in sharing. 


MS. MUNN: That will be great. 


DR. MELIUS: We understand. 


DR. WADE: Thank you all very much. Thank 


you, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: All right, I think we’re done. 


(Whereupon, the working group meeting 


concluded at 6:20 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

49 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of January 9, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


16th day of February, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102